$866K in crash damages

[LolaB]

So there goes the insurance increase for the rest of us... a reckless person is rewarded with a huge amount of money for not wearing a seatbelt. If she wasn't able to travel the distance with her blood cloths she clearly shouldn't be in that vehicle or chose to travel in a larger van with plenty of space, or use her brain and stop the car every 30-45 minutes to stretch and walk around as people with blood cloths do ...But she chose to be wrong and collects money now.

Vehicle insurance goes hand in hand with our so ever wrong legal system to reward those who cause trouble and do not follow any rules.

If you are an honest driver having a deer jumping front of you so your first reaction is to save your life rather than hitting an animal (less than a split second decision) and you swerve the car that eventually rolls over because of the gravel on the side of road, ICBC dismisses your case because you should have hit that deer to be covered! Lakatos got lots of time to re-think her decision when unbuckling her seatbelt (she was possibly never buckled up) but only 20% was deducted for that insanity. Where is the justice in BC? Literally nowhere....

[Fancy]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#211009

[Hassel99]

So there goes the insurance increase for the rest of us... a reckless person is rewarded with a huge amount of money for not wearing a seatbelt. If she wasn't able to travel the distance with her blood cloths she clearly shouldn't be in that vehicle or chose to travel in a larger van with plenty of space, or use her brain and stop the car every 30-45 minutes to stretch and walk around as people with blood cloths do ...But she chose to be wrong and collects money now.

Vehicle insurance goes hand in hand with our so ever wrong legal system to reward those who cause trouble and do not follow any rules.

If you are an honest driver having a deer jumping front of you so your first reaction is to save your life rather than hitting an animal (less than a split second decision) and you swerve the car that eventually rolls over because of the gravel on the side of road, ICBC dismisses your case because you should have hit that deer to be covered! Lakatos got lots of time to re-think her decision when unbuckling her seatbelt (she was possibly never buckled up) but only 20% was deducted for that insanity. Where is the justice in BC? Literally nowhere....

The other driver crossed the centerline. This is exactly how insurance should work. Your lack of empathy is unfortunately.

Your second paragraph highlights YOUR lack of understanding about coverage. Impact with a deer is comprehensive claim, single vehicle accident is a collision as defined by the motor vehicle act.. In your example you are suggesting a driver carries comprehensive coverage without collision? I call BS.

[jason500]

You're wrong on many accords, but a lot of that is opinion based as well. But as stated above, driver crossed the center line and that IS exactly what insurance is for and how it works.

Where you are incorrect, ICBC does not "dismiss" a case because you swerved away from a deer. All basic insurance comes with accident benefits, regardless of any optional insurance purchased. If you were to hit the deer (or the deer hit you, contrary to popular belief, it doesn't matter) comprehensive coverage would allow you to claim for damages to your vehicle. If you swerve and hit something that isn't an animal, collision coverage would be necessary to pay for damages to your vehicle. Accident benefits would be included regardless.

[MAPearce]

I wonder how much the total cost of the settlement is ?

Ya know , like how much ICBC played their lawyers to defend against paying such a large settlement .

[StraitTalk]

The article points out that the other drive is liable for 400+k in damages... does that mean his insurance ie. ICBC or him?